05 October 2014

Measure S – The Numbers Please! (updated 8oct14)

George Rebane

Pro-S supporters and community leaders have been denying Nevada County voters the relevant data with which to decide on how to vote for the Measure S medical marijuana (MMJ) initiative. They have been unwilling to count the number of legitimate MMJ users in the county. Not only that, they maintain that such data is impossible to get, none of the voters’ business, and irrelevant to making a reasoned decision on how to vote on the issue in November.

Leading pro-S advocate Ms Patricia Smith, president of the local Americans for Safe Access chapter, has been asked by RR and other media (KNCO) people about the size of the county’s medical marijuana consuming population. Her estimates have ranged into the multiple tens of thousands in a county in which less than 100,000 people live. This commentator has argued that such numbers are a bamboozle on the voters and nowhere close to reality.

The data now issuing from Colorado’s experience with legalizing recreational marijuana (RMJ) use is very revealing and applicable to the situation in Nevada County. The just out November 2014 issue of Reason magazine contains a long and informative article detailing what has been happening with MMJ and RMJ in Colorado since voters legalized RMJ sales and consumption.

An interesting result was that consumption of MMJ did not plummet as expected after the legalization of RMJ, but actually increased due to cost factors. But that is not the point I want to make in this post. Colorado has no trouble counting and reporting its MMJ users. This May the total came to 115,210 as reported by Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado has a population of about 5,250,000. There is no reason to think that Colorado’s lax MJ laws minimize the number of its MMJ users (both legitimate and frauds), so the ratio of Colorado’s users to its population – 0.022 – should apply to Nevada County’s 100,000 residents. This puts our county’s MMJ users into the vicinity of approximately 2,200 patients, not the tens of thousands claimed by pro-S promoters led by Ms Smith.

And isn’t it odd that an entire state can easily track its legal MMJ users, but our county with a handful of prescribing physicians cannot? This is a repeated call for the numbers relevant to our county's consumption of medical marijuana.

The bottom line here is that there is no epidemic of MMJ users in the county, and most certainly there is no shortage of supply for the arguably small number of the county’s MMJ patients as claimed by Measure S supporters. If my estimate is materially in error, it is up to the pro-S people to present evidence that supports that contention.

[6oct14 update] The comment stream to the above post was immediate, emotional, and irrational, yet nevertheless expected, valuable, and worthy of examination on its own merits.

First, readers who recall some of their training in science will recognize the line of reasoning that obtained the 2,200 estimate is based on what we in science call the Copernican Argument (see also the Copernican place, Copernican moment, Copernican part, …). Without rehashing the history, the Copernican Argument is a powerful starting point for estimations and explanations of existential phenomena about which few specifics are known. In the case of MMJ usage, the CArg is that Nevada County’s MMJ experience does not fall far from the aggregate of such MMJ experiences in American jurisdictions from which the Colorado experience is but a more fully known sample. And therefore, absent other data, the Colorado experience can in many ways serve as a proxy to estimating some of the same kinds of parameters that hold in our neck of the woods. Most certainly the ratio of MMJ users within a population is the most straightforward parameter that can be ‘transferred’ to estimate the approximate size of Nevada County’s similar population.

Of course, to those ignorant of such things, this all seems like mumbo jumbo or some kind of black magic. Be that as it may.

The second aspect of the comments that is worthy of note again illustrates the deep and (I maintain) irreconcilable chasm that exists between the liberal mind and other modes of thought and reasoning. Here we see a commenter, who we may assume typifies a ‘liberal thinker’, answer the legitimate demand for minimal data to support the adoption of Measure S by counter demanding a laundry list of MMJ related data (some ludicrous) from the opponents of S as some kind of argumentative pro quid quo. Not only that, but such data must be forthcoming before the pro-S faction even recognizes the need for knowing the approximate magnitude of the ‘MMJ problem’ the new Measure S is to alleviate.

The long known and reasonable sequence of such arguments has always been that when some party/parties propose a change to any established order/process/construction, then it is incumbent on them to provide the people of the established order with substantive arguments as to why their new way is better and should replace the old. But the modern liberal mind no longer recognizes such a protocol (another devastating result of Great Society’s educational system?), and seeks to change things simply on the basis of their say so, advancing the empty proposition that their new proposal will in some unknown way make things better, more equitable, more just, or more something. Examples of the fruits of such thinking over the last forty years abound in our land, and the insanity grows daily. Here we see just a small part of the wave of unreason washing over America.

[7oct14 update] Regular readers will be happy to know that RR got its moment in the sun about our coverage and voluminous debate over the Measure S initiative. We are prominently featured in the 7oct14 Union’s lead article on page one (here). For readers new to RR wishing to read the entire series on Measure S, I have collected the permalinks below –

[8oct14 update] The comments of pro-S worthies Messrs BradC and APatriot, starting with my 551pm comment and jumping to BradC’s 1050am, open a new front in the Measure S debate regarding the strong claim by pro-S that the purpose of S reaches significantly beyond the adequate supply and access of MMJ to ONLY Nevada County’s legitimate MMJ patients. It turns out that Measure S, through its lax provisions for MMJ grows and enforcemet, is also intended to launch a resurgent MMJ export business to the remainder of the state as allowed by existing state law.

Here I want to respond to the somewhat desperate and off-the-point responses from Ms Patricia Smith (322pm) and Mr APatriot (404pm). The quoted material is in their words, starting with Ms Smith –

“…you complain over numbers that are not substantiated and then you have the audacity to declare unilaterally that NC grows enough medicine to supply all the patients in California.”

My declaration was to make a point about the enormous amount of MJ grown in NC so that claims of the lack of MMJ supply in the county could be put in perspective. I did admit to being off the mark on the total amount, but that was not the point important to voters. I never complained about “unsubstantiated” numbers, just of their total absence and the humorous attempt to throw the CDC under the bus for Ms Smith’s obviously bad arithmetic or gross ignorance of the county’s population.

“The first thing our elected officials say when we bring up lack of access is ‘go to a dispensary in Sacramento.’ ”

If going to Sacramento is a hardship for MMJ users, then Measure S would have provided a service in specifying that such dispensaries can be opened up in Nevada County. Apparently it is not that big of a problem.

“What you refuse to acknowledge is that most of the marijuana being grown in NC is NOT medicine.”

Pattie, who taught you how to read??? I have proclaimed exactly the opposite in this debate cycle and for many years before that. Your campaign would do better if you gave your opposition credit for more brains. EVERYONE knows that Nevada County’s RMJ crop swamps its legal MMJ crop – please, get a grip. And no one in the anti-S camp wants legitimate MMJ users denied their product. Unfortunately, S does not provide for the local manufacture and convenient dispensing of all the variants of MMJ you describe. However, 2349 can be amended to do just that if you make a believable case for it (and yes, that will require numbers).

“One cannot ignore the number of patients that visit our local doctors who write MMJ recommendations. This would indicate a substantially higher number of active patients than you want to admit. Again, it is impossible to get a factually accurate number for many reasons, but mostly because there is no central registration collecting agency to verify these numbers. I'll leave the guessing games to you.”

A properly written S would have prescribed a “central registration agency” (the county’s health department) for the collection of such data from the county’s prescribing physicians. The data is available and easily collected, as I have pointed out numerous times. And the “guessing games” appear as such to you only because of your inexperience in the procedures used for estimation in all fields of science. Were you to continue in this enterprise of advocating public policy changes, I’d recommend getting familiar with them.

We continue with the revealing offerings of Mr APatriot’s 404pm –

“No George that is your conjecture, opinion and hallucination. …”

Have no idea what the man’s referent is.

“Only the No on S posse seems to be afraid of facts. You constantly ignore the reasons S is an improvement. You wanted reasons, I gave you sound agricultural practices, no response.”

No one has any idea of what facts the anti-S people are afraid of since almost no facts have been presented by the pro-S promoters. A dissertation about “agricultural practices” deserves no response since under 2349 the number of visibly healthy MJ grows in the county is legion. If S would call for zoning set asides for the commercial growing of MMJ, then we would be getting somewhere. But what S promotes is simply the ability for surreptitious growing of RMJ under the MMJ mantle. And, of course, you’re right that I do have only a layman’s knowledge of growing MJ picked up from various presentations on the topic. But that again is neither the point of S vs 2349, nor the salient factor to consider in casting your vote because it seems that everyone has cracked the code on growing MJ.

“You also seem to think the title Dr. makes you a medical expert, from the manner and content of your dosage claims.”

“How about you tell US how many times the B of S has met to adjust, revise and improve what exists. They haven't, they lied, and they continue to fall short.”

Had you paid attention, then you would know that I already did. 2349 is readily amendable, and has seen a number of amendments by the BoS (you can download them here). Measure S is not amendable, but requires another election in which voters will be presented another poured-in-concrete initiative to grieve over. The state’s voters passed such an initiative in Prop 215. And what it wound up doing was creating a deluge of (still ongoing) lawsuits across the state’s jurisdictions that in desperation sought to define what the proposition left unsaid or on which it was silent. Now the pro-S crowd wants to revisit that same plague on the citizens of Nevada County with a loosey-goosey replacement of a working and amendable county ordinance that defines the growing and use of MMJ, while it balances the nuisance concerns of the growers’ neighbors.

Comments

Can The No on S folks please provide data on exactly how much illegal profits are being made by Medical Cannabis patients and caregivers? Can they tell me how much more illegal marijuana will be diverted to the black market if Measure S passes? Can they tell me the costs to grow a plant? What percentage of that cost is spent at local businesses? How about the amount of cannabis oil needed to stop seizures in a single patient for a day? How many ounces of cannabis does it take to make it? How do you back your belief that there is no shortage of MEDICINAL grade Cannabis available for patients? Please support that contention. We all know there is plenty of MJ around. What percentage of it is acceptable for medical use? If there is "plenty" please tell us how much that is. Please provide the data! I'm still waiting for Don to cough up the raw data on the ASPOA "poll", by the way.

Dr. Rebane, I couldn't find that Reason article you cite online (yet) but did find these by the same author that I found quite interesting.:

There are several easy was to gather this information, but no type of cumulative way, such as how many men in this county are using erection drugs, and how many are purchasing these drugs from European pharmacies?

I don't know how using Colorado's information here would make any sense, and with your education level Dr. Rebane, I don't know how you could surmise any numbers using Colorado's numbers, to ours locally? Especially when the only "advantage" to having a prescription is that you save a couple bucks when purchasing your medicine (and you have to spend 2/3's of a day getting it at a cost of @$125-150).

Here's a interesting thought though, using the data from 2 local hydroponic stores (there are 9 in this county). These stores were able to provide how many individual individual credit cards were used in their stores, and the number was @13,200. This means that @13,200 individual cards were used, but we all know that many people have 2 cards, or many more just pay for their purchases in cash.....

I hope your PhD was a little more through that this nonsense your talking about here....

Nice try A.P. ,, YOU tell us! Your the "expert" here. But from what I know, it's PLENTY!
Plenty of money to buy new cars, "toys", etc. What's the experiences? Some dirt and fertilizer, and drip line. Yup, that's going to set one back for years...(ya.right) Fencing is usually a one time outlay.

And for the umteenth time,, define " just compensation".( 40% over cost? 60%?? lets have it.) And when the cops come knocking, have that expense report handy, to prove that overhead.

That's all you got? It's the dopers like yourself that brag that it's weed profits that keep the local economy afloat. " If it wasn't for weed, the county would go under."
That has been stated here more than once.
So lets have those "facts" Smith,, and stop drinking the bong water.

Nobody can say for sure how many pot consumers or scripts there are in Nevada County. That would take mega bucks and research done at the State level over a period of months.
First, anyone of us can get a script outside of Nevada County. Heck, last time I was at muscle beach at Venice Beach, there was a young girl on the sidewalk calling out "the doctor is in, get your marijuana recommendation now, no waiting." So, it would have to up to Uncle Jerry's boys to give us a rough estimate and that won't happen before Nov. 4th.
If one was inclined to find out how many people smoke or consume pot here and how many growers and how many since Prop 215, WA State has come up with a novel idea, but it won't work here because of all areas that have wells in the county.http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2014/09/scientist_wants_to_test_spokane_washington_sewage.php
It would cost little rural counties too much money we don't have to get an good guesstimate to answer all the questions and there is too little time. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

My, the early birds are up (moi included) getting the worms. Good morning everybody. Mr. Smith, you try operating a backhoe and make it hum like a songbird. It ain't easy I tell you. Neither is driving a full water truck out in the boonies to the last house on some God forsaken rutted steep road to deliver H2O to some operation. Most of us would end up in the ditch.
I have spent weeks this summer on a little plot of rocky hard clay soil to get it ready for fall wildflowers. Every night after work and weekends hand picking out rocky and small boulders down 8-12 inches to loosen the cement soil. And hand carrying thousands of rocks out. It would take Walt probably 30 minutes. Why don't I use Walt? Cause I can't afford him.
What I can't stand is some people's arrogance spewed upon us non college grads and blue collar types. All work has value, even the FUE working on his PennySaver has value, or me hand clearing rocks and poison oak and brush every hour I have the energy. Walt and I deliver to folks that which is important to them. Walt can hold his own quite well without my input.
Mr. Smith, there are other ways to criticize one's opinion. For instance, sad sack, I think the best part of you ran down your Mama's leg, ass wipe. See, that works just fine, maggot.

How many scripts are being used in this little county? Think there is patient/ doctor privacy laws (HIPPA) that might stifle inquiries, but I could be wrong. Then the question of how many scripts issued that are not being used to cultivate medicinal marihuana (people changing their minds or moving into town).
The real question is does someone's right to legally grow marihuana for medicinal purposes supersede a neighbor's right to not smell the skunk? That is what it boils down to, not whether one is pro or anti marihuana or marihuana cultivation.
Reminds me of the old familiar stories here. Some old man has been burning bush and limbs in his back yard every winter for 45 years. Then a new neighbor moves in, see the smoke, and calls the Air Quality Board to complain. The caller cannot smell the smoke nor is it blowing in his direction, but the old man's burn pile is shut down, despite being a burn day. The reason stated by the AQB is one complaint and they shut it down.
That is the new reality. I once tested this new reality. Went to Broad Street in Nirvana City, stood outside a business with an unlit cig in my mouth pretending to smoke. Passerby's would grimace, wave at the air to fan the evil smoke away and give me dirty looks. Heck, it was an unlit cig, lol. Guess they got 2nd hand smoke through psychosomatic osmosis.
Was working at a home in PV last fall. The poor lady from the Sanctuary City by the Bay just bought the home off Horton Street and the smell of skunk weed drying was so powerful that it made even my eyes water and she had to shut the windows on a warm day. Upon investigation, I was surprised to find out that she had not one, not two, but 3 neighbors with big sheds drying pot (deep lot). She said if she would have known she would have never bought the house and why didn't the real estate person inform her?
I replied that not to worry, the smell will be gone in 3 weeks.
Best to be neighborly and have great neighbors in an ideal world. Some neighbors are "cool", some aren't. Carry on.

Shucks Doc Dave. Just quote Hillary and cry out "What difference does it make?" and wash your hands of the matter. Nothing to see here. Next question please.
Now may be appropriate time for a couple of Herbert Spencer quotes:

When a man's knowledge is not in order, the more of it he has the greater will be his confusion.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation
Herbert Spencer quotes

OK, everyone who uses Marijuana either recreationally or medically please hold up your hand - oh wait, here are some paper bags to put over your heads so the Sheriff and his Posse won't round you up in the middle of the night and abate your gardens.

Of course they can count how many users in Colorado - it's legal there and folks won't be harassed if they raise their hands.

And Yes, me too - still waiting on the numbers of the ASPOA poll. . . .

"Pro-S supporters and community leaders have been denying Nevada County voters the relevant data with which to decide on how to vote for the Measure S medical marijuana (MMJ) initiative. They have been unwilling to count the number of legitimate MMJ users in the county. "

It is irrelevant how many MMJ users there are in the county since the product can be used/sold anywhere in California, a caregiver/grower can grow for patients that reside outside of Nevada County. This is where the No on S folks are clueless. The more relevant statistic would be how many MMJ users we have in the state of California, but, even if you know that number, it is a useless figure unless you can figure out how much product it takes to fulfill all the MMJ needs of all the MMJ users in California.

BradC 330pm - Your civic mind seems to be overflowing with care for the state's sufferers. I believe Measure S is only concerned with Nevada County's MMJ users. However, as other readers have pointed out, the pro-S crowd is indeed more concerned with the county's export markets. And getting an upper level estimate of the total product needed for a known number of MMJ users is not rocket science. But the real answer is that NC already grows more pot than all the state's MMJ users can consume to alleviate their miseries - unfortunately most of those grows are for RMJ. At most, here in the county we MAY have a distribution problem. To substantiate that by something beyond an anecdote or two would be a profitable contribution for the ASA folks to make.

Ms Pattie Smith of the ASA posted an audacious claim that 5% of California's population are MMJ users. Her attempt to convert that to NC's MMJ usership fell a little short on the arithmetic, but I laud her on bringing some attempt at numbers to the discussion.

Now here's something to consider (also ref Brian Caplan's work on America's voting statistics), the population of California is about 38,340,000 of which 5% is 1,917,000. Given that the remaining 95% of CA voters are pretty much equally uninformed on any issue, and thereby split their votes, the almost 2 million MMJ users across the state can thereby carry any election that loosens restrictions on the supply of MMJ.

If Ms Smith's fevered estimate of the number of NC MMJ users ("in the tens of thousands") is anywhere near correct, she and her cohort should just sit back, light up, and plan the Measure S victory party. With that kind of a majority, there is no chance that S will be turned down next month. (So, you think that all that bamboozle might not be true after all?)

Well, if you consider that the Harborside club in Oakland has 120,000 and their second location in San Jose has another 82,000 and these are two of the @100 in the state it makes it a interesting number.

Ok, Brad, the more relevant question is how does Measure S help chronically ill patients obtain their medicine. Does it help, hinder, or no difference. Since S is a county ordinance, how does S facilitate the county's patients in cultivating the max of 6 plants per State law. I hope you were not hinting at facilitating access to medical marijuana for patients living outside Nevada County.

Mr. Brad, give me your best Readers Digest version of why I should support S and how the current ordinance denies someone with a script to legally cultivate their 6 plant limit outside of our little townships. I will come back later. Shorter is better for us with short attention spans. Helpful hint #1.

ThomasB 416pm - You got it. My position on legalizing MJ is well recorded here and people with appropriate reading skills already know it. But yes, if RMJ also becomes legal in CA, I'm all for growing the stuff on large commercial farms, and providing it through well regulated and taxed outlets such Colorado and Washington are pioneering (Colorado needs to work on relaxing their usage regs). But all that doesn't remove the regulations required to manage pot grows in built up areas anymore than establishing mini-feedlots in city residential neighborhoods - again a barn well circled in this series of MJ pieces on RR.

If MJ is legalized what is your view about cultivation being recognized and encouraged as a cottage industry in Nevada County that will provide hundreds of jobs and millions to our local economy?
Also does your encouragement of "growing the stuff on large commercial farms" mean that Nevada County will be out of the business and suffer the economic consequences that will follow.?

I note the Beckforth sock (1:35PM) doesn't actually present a Latin phrase he thinks was correct (or more correct, in a real or imagined sense), nor does he negate the obvious message. If anyone wishes a Latin refresher, I can recommend this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

"I hope your PhD was a little more through that [sic] this [sic] nonsense [sic] your [sic] talking about here...." -Dave Smith 3:33AM

I can only make a wild guess as to what Dave Smith was doing at 3:33AM, and I'll let George's readers make their own wild guesses.

George 410pm Yes, I guess I am just a civic-minded soul. So, tell me why it is so important to know how many MMJ users are in this county considering that MMJ users don't have to live in this county to use Nevada County grown products (and let's not get sidetracked by RMJ, eh?)? And, since we are not talking about limiting MMJ production at current levels, more MMJ could conceivably be grown in Nevada County to provide "caring support" for additional thousands of "sufferers" in LA high-rises and condos who don't want to, or cannot grow their own. Current MMJ user or script counts only provide a current snapshot and is a pursuit only a statistician could love.
One might want to know how many local users we have before opening a dispensary (if allowed), but I don't see how counting MMJ users is going to help a voter decide how to vote.

PaulE 445pm - Already answered the cottage industry point. If you can do it without being a nuisance to your neighbors, then vaya con Dios. The same as starting a feedlot in your back yard. Both would be legal, but not everywhere. Look at western NC, there is plenty of ag land out there for huge MJ farms. So there's no reason for NC to exit the production of MJ once MMJ and RMJ policies are normalized.

BradC 543pm - You have not been paying attention to or even reading my comments during these MJ posts and their ensuing comment streams. Do your homework.

All growers know that international mega-growers have designs and contracts for lands in the CA Central Valley. Currently, this is only a short-term 'gold rush', which will soon play out
in the foothills. Monsanto weed will win out.

YO MC LOUD, 79 percent of ASPOA respondents are NO ON S! 74 percent NO on S in the blended total! Numbers of respondents very similar to the primary vote percentages. NOON FRIDAY, KVMR Pot Head Prez Pattie and me will have a real debate. Did anyone see the World Health Org. 20 year study on long term societal costs of weed that just came out? Well Leffty Jeffy did not pick up the purple cloak after we ripped it off the Nevada city propaganda machine. He just came out with a dose of leffty jeffy truth with his sign choices! Well done gentlemen and NCRWF warriors.

Still waiting for the raw numbers and answers from Donny and the Doctor. One takes a WAG and calls it Copernican, makes a ludicrous request for data he knows can't be accurately compiled, then circles the barn and implies the request for data to back unsubstantiated claims (it's all about the money, there's plenty of MMJ for the patients) of the No on S posse is the work of an ignorant "liberal thinker". The other can't provide raw data at all and comes up with something called "blended totals" and raves about someone's wardrobe. Yes, the numbers please! 60 billion or 60 million? Biased or unbiased. Seems the "No" posse is "falling short" on truth.

As long as we're at it, who cares how many MMJ patients currently live in Nevada County. The REAL question is how many of those that live in Nevada County can BENEFIT from it. The answer is 100%. When readily available as an alternative treatment, the use of dangerous, side effect ridden opioid analgesics and overdose deaths are reduced. Fact. Which do you prefer, the baby using Charlotte's Web to control seizures and the man suffering from Crohn's disease growing some plants on his own property or the junkie ripping of your medicine chest and leaving needles in you parks and public washrooms? On a side note, ANYONE that steals or removes legally posted campaign signs is absolute scum with no respect for America, our Constitution and Freedom of Speech. I'll take an honest trimmigrant from timbuktu over these local hypocrites every day of the week.

George 646pm - "Pro-S supporters and community leaders have been denying Nevada County voters the relevant data with which to decide on how to vote for the Measure S medical marijuana (MMJ) initiative. They have been unwilling to count the number of legitimate MMJ users in the county. Not only that, they maintain that such data is impossible to get, none of the voters’ business, and irrelevant to making a reasoned decision on how to vote on the issue in November."

On the contrary, I have been paying attention. I think you are just off on a witch hunt for hanging chad. If you really wanted to know how many MMJ users are in the county, you could do your own survey. Why should ASA do the survey for you considering it is a waste of time and will not "prove" anything? You also stated in your original post that Colorado keeps statewide statistics on MMJ users - that is what you need to focus on since Prop. 215 is a statewide program.
Measure S is not revolutionary. And the ordinance it would replace was poorly written. Period.
Your post looks to be an attack to discredit Patricia Smith and ASA and thereby turn public opinion against Measure S.

"The bottom line here is that there is no epidemic of MMJ users in the county, and most certainly there is no shortage of supply for the arguably small number of the county’s MMJ patients as claimed by Measure S supporters. If my estimate is materially in error, it is up to the pro-S people to present evidence that supports that contention."
I believe that you are missing the point, assuming that a MMJ cardholder can designate a caregiver in another county to grow their prescribed allotment of MMJ for them. Measure S is not, and has never been about local MMJ "users".
So, it is irrelevant if there is no shortage of supply for local MMJ users since the MMJ grown here can be legally used by out-of-county residents. MMJ grown here currently can end up in state dispensaries across the state. Some product will be used locally (even though there are no dispensaries in Nevada County) and if there are not enough local users, the product can be shipped out to rest of the state. Are you purposely ignoring this fact in order to attempt to prove something?
I would like to hear how your "commons" theory applies to this discussion. My feeling is that our local ordinances should not hinder our use of property to grow MMJ as compared to other agricultural areas of the state because that only gives other counties with more reasonable ordinances an "unfair" advantage.

BradC 848am - Alas, all of that has already been covered here (for latest see comment stream for the '... Numbers Please' piece. And do you note how the conversation with A Patriot has stopped? He still does not understand that when you propose to change something new for something old, it's your job to make the case for the new. Penetrating a brain that calls the legitimate citing of Copernicus a WAG, is quite impossible. That man would be amazed at how scientists (including people in the EPA)have been estimating populations of species for generations now. And then again, maybe not.

My Dear George, our conversation has not stopped, just waiting for you to stop circling the barn and obfuscating the true issues with purposely nebulous verbosity and puffery. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and correct myself, you made an EDUCATED WAG. At BEST it is (as you say yourself) a starting point for estimations and explanations of existential phenomena about which few specifics are known. Key words those: "few specifics are known". Regarding making the case for something new, done and done. Wake up and study the available data, not just the sources likely to support your claims. It is your responsibility to educate yourself on the science. Not mine. You can lead a horse to water...

APatriot 944am - We would be glad to study "the available data" in support of S. I don't recall that you have ever led any horses to water on this issue. Your arguments have been less than factual and containing no data whatsoever. Your leader's attempt at answering the data questions on radio and here have been a bit embarrassing. I'm not sure as to what kind of data powers the proponents of Measure S.

Please provide specifics where I have stated conjecture and opinion as fact. and have not supported those statements with appropriate links to relevant data and expert opinion and I'll be happy to try and address any lack of sources your perceive. Also I have no leader, while I staunchly support Measure S as a vast improvement over the sham that is 2349. Also contrary to your ASSumptions, I do not consider myself a "lib" I do not consider Patti "my leader", nor am I a "member" of ASA. I evaluate her positions (as well of those posting opinions here) on its merit and corroboration by independent sources.

George
Since you are into studies and statistics do you think there should be an economic study on the economic impacts of MMJ cultivation in Nevada County? Perhaps thats something the ERC can take on. Also how about a look at impacts on property values using Yuba County, which has an ordinance similar to S, as an example.

PaulE 1114am - Since there is anecdotal evidence ranging over years that RMJ cultivation in the county is a major economic contributor, by all means we should undertake a study to quantify this economic factor (and, if possible, identify the means by which the money comes into our economy). And I would hope that the NC real estate people would take a lead in the land values analysis since they have decided to support a more lax and expanded MMJ cultivation policy.

APatriot 1052am - My apologies, I wasn't clear. The citations I was referring to were to be in support of Measure S for Nevada County, not general discussions of the MMJ and RMJ issues that are now legion. We would like to see some hard data recommending S, and please feel free to use the Copernican Argument, if necessary, to make your case.

[7oct14 update] Regular readers will be happy to know that RR got its moment in the sun about our coverage and voluminous debate over the Measure S initiative. We are prominently featured in the 7oct14 Union’s lead article on page one (here).

About which one of jeffys "regulars" makes a sad face.

Chip Wilder says:

October 7, 2014 at 11:13 am

They quote Rebane’s Blog again on the front page of the union today. Using his blog as a news source adds another layer of disrespect to its readers, to bad for us—-.

Anybody know if "Chip" is a real person or another persona whose rectum smells like jeffys chili fry stained fingers? (That would be a "sock puppet" for the dimmer members of the audience)

George 901am - You led your piece with some "breaking news" that ASA won't provide "estimates" but it has become obvious to me that you cannot come up with a reason why the number of MMJ users in Nevada County is a deciding factor in determining whether Measure S should be implemented. You keep dancing around the issue, directing me to some sockpuppet posts, or something. I have explained why the number of local MMJ users is irrelevant, so that smokescreen has been blown away.
What about Measure S bothers you? Does the existing ordinance requirement that MMJ be grown on a level plane bother you? Does that seem strange to you?
Does restricting the plantable square-footage bother you? Why would they restrict the footprint of a grow? What would it harm to allow property owners to use more of their property, if they want to, as long as the actual number of plants does not change? Measure S would change that.
I could go on but, you aren't listening anyway..

fish 1128am - Given your quote being accurate, the mental acuity of commenters on FUE's blog never ceases to amaze. The citing of RR in today's Union was definitely not as a "news source", it was simply reporting that RR was a prominent place where Measure S was being written about and debated. And that fact is evident on the face of it. There was nothing abstracted from RR to either support or oppose S. But such sloppy pronouncements by the Left are endemic. Arguably it is the sum and stuff of their apologetics on issues.

Could it be that there's a little publicity envy going on there? Nah! ;-)

BradC 1132am - I have explained in general and in detail why numbers are important in the discussion of ALL social issues. Pro-S people base their case on the insufficient supply and problems with access for MMJ in Nevada County. Well, how many people are so affected? Because the solutions would be quite different if it is around, say, 1,500 to the suffering patients suffering in "the tens of thousands". That you and yours have no clue about such factors impacting the making of public policy goes a long way to explain why the country is over taxed and over regulated, and becoming more so daily.

Let's agree that we both consider the other to reside beyond the pale of reason - I for openers do strongly admit that I am way beyond comprehending any of the reasoning that you have presented and do so again in the present comment. You no doubt have reciprocal feelings about how RR argues the points it makes. We come from different worlds. I don't know your training or professional background, and can only say that you have demonstrated no knowledge about the fields in which I have taught and made my living.

Do I really need to provide numerical data and topo maps to convince anyone in the foothills of the benefits of terraced farming? Water conservation and erosion prevention apparently means nothing to the No "sayers". For a few of the kids in the gallery, here's a little something that you might comprehend. http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/geography/terracefarming.htm .

Can anyone here tell me how much usable space actually exists that is suitable for cultivation once all the restrictions and demands placed on LEGIT patients by 2349 are met? Are we to assume that any space that conforms is the optimum growing environment that will produce the 20 ft. tall Jack in the Beanstalk fantasy shown on the GOP "No on S" sign in today's paper? Can you tell me where to get the current/confirmed bus stop location list? There was some analysis made (and apparently ignored) when 2349 was in development, the data was presented at the working groups. Donny was there. So were others posting here from time to time.

Could it be that there's a little publicity envy going on there? Nah! ;-)

I think it was Greg who pointed out (much to my eternal shame for not noticing) that the SFUE (spherical Former Union editor) gets edgier and ever more strident when his page view numbers start to decline (I know jeffy...you're thriving.....).

Yeah Brad I don't understand George's focus on the numbers of MM users in Nevada County. It seems irrelevant to the discussion about S since the demand is statewide and distribution with fair compensation is not a legal issue. It seems that George has send the class home for some unnecessary homework to keep from facintg the real issue that being how can we support MMJ cultivation as a legitimate cottage industry while mitigating factors that may be considered a nuisance. Remember, the current Ordinance is no more than a nuisance ordinance and not criminal.

George writes " But the real answer is that NC already grows more pot than all the state's MMJ users can consume to alleviate their miseries - " George 4:10

That's an outrageous assumption George without any factual basis. The fact is that if some MMJ may be diverted for recreational use it's a law enforcement not civil issue so using civil law to handle criminal behavior is devious to say the least. Let the police investigate illegal diversions as a criminal matter and take the appropriate actions. If they can't enforce the law then write a new one they can enforce or bring in the National Guard.

One again I have to remind readers that the 21st Amendment that ended Prohibition was fought against tooth and nail by law enforcement till the bitter end. If they would have had their way it would still be illegal to have a glass of wine with dinner or a beer with friends while watching a football game.

PaulE 133pm - Not outrageous at all. I maintain that all MJ grown is fungible thereby being available for both RMJ and MMJ. And you can't have it both ways - we grow so much that we export and beneficially impact NC's economy, and we don't have enough MJ in NC for MMJ purposes. But I'm all for the factual basis that you and yours have been denigrating on these pages. Since you want to change what is, then make a factual case for it. I've already made my beliefs about MJ usage clear, and it doesn't look like S is a step in the right direction. It can't even characterize (save by emotional anecdotes) the problem it purports to solve.

I'm still shaking my head on your belief that Nevada County grows enough MMJ for the entire states medical needs. It's like you make an outrageous assumption and declare it to be true unless it is challenged by factual date. The fact is that you have no factual basis to make that statement in the first place. That's 9th grade debate tactics George and you know it. You really boxed yourself in a corner with this one.

AS I've stated several times I am not a supporter of S. Neither am I a supporter of our current Ordinance. I say send it back for a rewrite, one that supports MMJ cultivation as a cottage industry and also mitigates nuisance problems at the same time.

PaulE 229pm - Keep that head shaking Paul. You, of course, misread what I said which is par for the course.

"But the real answer is that NC already grows more pot than all the state's MMJ users can consume to alleviate their miseries - unfortunately most of those grows are for RMJ."

Yeah, I'll stick to my WAG on this one based on all the income reputed to come to NC merchants from people owning and working on MJ grows. From the number of plants visible from a casual flyover on Google Earth, NC is MJ heaven. And I'll go with the more defendable estimate (see Russ Steele's blog) that there are about 600K MMJ users in California. And, yes, I do believe that NC grows enough total pot to satisfy all those users. The pro-S argument about the lack of accessible MMJ for the county's 1,400 to 2,200 patients is a red herring that awaits contradicting data from the measure's proponents. (Boy, I think I'll quit circling this barn.)

I have no interest in your squabble with the S'rs on those details. It's when you say that Nevada County grows enough MMJ to satisfy the medical needs of 600k patients throughout the State you lose all credibility with reasonable thinkers. Does anybody else on this blog side with George's estimate ?

To put real numbers to your estimate 600,000 patients using an estimated three pounds per year would be 1,800,000 pounds of Cannabis grown and distributed from our little County. Let's just say that each plant yields four pounds of product that would mean that would mean over 400,000 mature plants are grown and successfully exported. Nevada County has approximately 950 square miles including national forrest and public lands so lets just say there are 200 square miles of farm land suitable for cultivation ( a very generous estimate) so to do the math on that means that each sq mile must produce 2000 mature plants to meet your prescription. Wow! Do you still stick to those numbers?

George, I found it interesting as I was in Hansen Brothers earlier this year and they specifically have a "420" mix that they sell, and when I asked the guy behind the counter how much they sell, he said "lots"....

Then I went to Sierra Plumbing and their manager told a friend that they sell $200K worth of irrigation supplies directly to the mmj crowd. He said that this allowed him to have an additional 2-3 workers on the payroll.

Still no hard facts from the "S" crew. ( well,,, called that one..) Reading ALL the posts, yup,, it all about the bucks. @ T. Beckforth. That's not new news. That's been bragged about here many a' time. Yes, every "soil broker" has a "pot" mix. ( usually the most expensive in the yard....I wonder why? Not really...)
Every water truck in the county is making deliveries, and not the dusty construction sites.

"S" is supposed to be about "medicine" for locals.. Right?
Not a post here from the "S" gang has mentioned the "local need". At least not in the past 30 hours.
It's about profits, and no taxes on those profits.But Lefties love taxes. Just as long as THEY don't pay them.

PaulE 356pm – I’m told that a mature plant grown in a 100 sqft area easily produces 6 lbs of product annually, and that a MMJ patient needs around 2lbs annually depending on what form it is consumed (much less if smoked or in ‘cookies’). But be that as it may, let’s just use your numbers and assume that MJ can only be grown in “farm areas” (patently false) which amount to only 200 sq miles (or about a 14x14 mile square). That land area equals over 5,575,000 sq ft yielding only 55,750 plants each in its own 10x10 foot area (which is very generous), which does fall short of your required 400,000 plants.

However, using the alternative estimates above, one plant will produce enough MJ for three patients annually which ups the estimate of patients supplied to 167,250, using the remainder of your numbers. Given all the assumptions flying around here, I’m willing to live with that ballpark number and live with the putative error.

We may recall, that NC supplying all of the state’s MMJ needs from its total production is a moot point and was raised only to illustrate the vast amount of MJ grown locally to more than supply our county’s and several other counties’ MMJ demand. The point remains that both 2349 and S deal only with NC’s MMJ consumption by about 2,000 patients, which the pro-S people claim cannot be satisfied by the county’s current MMJ production. What data is there to support that?

BTW, no one has established that we can’t ask the county’s prescribing physicians for the numbers (not identities) of active MMJ prescriptions. And also, no one has taken the MedicalMarijuana.org numbers to task, nor have they noted that those people used the same procedure that did I to estimate NC's MMJ population.http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001199

Sorry George, but 8 pounds from a single plant is an anomaly and not the common yield..... You might try 1/3-1/6 that amount (1-3 pounds), and the simple fact is that there are people that use it for cooking, and making tinctures which can consume up to 1 pound per week which then make your State given 6 plants, at the above production rates far short of your needs.

Now I know that Walt's little panties are going to get wound up in a tizzy, but not everyone smokes it.......

I make hemp hula hoops with my medicinal grow. Dr. says I need more outdoor activities and more fun to get them adorphines flowing. I don't smoke dope, neither do I inhale it or consume it or rub it on my wrists. Hey, I am not a registered licensed practicing physician, just following the doctor's orders. Don't know why a regular plastic hula hoop from K Mart won't work just the same, so I suppose that is why they call it practicing medicine. I am beginning to wonder about my doc. His eyes are looking like of red and he keeps forgetting what he was jabbering about.

Well now.. Seems one person has more than one name to hide behind. What's the count now? Three? T.B. is just the newest. Now that's sad....I'm sure Mr. Bill has a new outfit to match your next persona. Got that flowery print outfit still Bill? " Becky" may need another change.

You still haven't convinced me of the importance of knowing local usage. According to you NC grows enough to supply the whole state so it is indeed a moot point what local needs are since in your view there is plenty to fill local needs. That discussion doesn't interest me and is between you and certain proponents of Measure S. State law allows production and distribution throughout the State. There is nothing in either Ordinance that states the importance of exclusive local distribution of lawfully grown MMJ. Is so please inform me and I'll change my view.

Oh, Tommie Becky! I owas addressing Mr Smith and his arrogance putting down a poster's education level and spelling. No, strike that. I was addressing Mr. Smith ridiculing any person's lack of post higher education degrees and mocking their status in life. So yes, the best part of Mr. Smith ran down his Momma's leg. You have a problem with that? If so, then you must agree with Mr. Smith's POV concerning laughing at others who do not have pieces of paper tacked to the wall telling the world how smart they think they are. One can only conclude that you, Tommy Becky, laugh at others' education levels and current status in life if they do not meet or exceed yours.
Therefore, I can only conclude that the best part of you ran down your Momma's spread wide open legs with some stranger as well. Have a nice day and please carry a hankie just in case you get a nosebleed from your exalted tower.

Still no definition of " just compensation", or just how much $$$$ that means.
And posting the "state code" sure doesn't cut it.
Paul sure is hell bent on shipping all over hell's 10 acres. ( all of Ca. points East and North.) His claim of only supporting "legal grows" is sure on shaky ground.
Do explain being an absentee caregiver.

Here's another excuse the "S" den can try. " MJ stops Global warming". Since the explosion
of MJ grows in the last decade correlates with the halt in GW,, it MUST be true!
Take another bong hit and it should make perfect sense.

[PaulE 854pm] Paul, long ago I was taught that as a teacher I would not be able to teach all students. While saddened by that revelation, I swallowed hard and put that inability up there with the rest of my many weaknesses. Yet somehow I managed to struggle through that part of my career. Now here on RR I am no longer in that role; here I’m not trying to convince people (especially our brethren of the Left) of anything, only explain why I believe that something is true or likely. They will either look favorably on such explanations or not. But I always stand ready to succumb to reason and modify my beliefs.

With respect to the importance of numbers characterizing social issues, including Measure S, I have made those points throughout the years on these pages, and specifically regarding Measure S. That you remain unconvinced of such need should not trouble you. You were happy not knowing the size of NC’s MMJ user cohort before, and I’m sure you’ll not miss this knowledge in the future.

[ThomasB 1032pm] Mr Tozer, you, and I are all troubled with our special demons who now and then make themselves known, and thereby expose our blemishes. Thank you for joining this county’s “intelligent folks” on RR and sharing your insights.

Here is what old Joe Koyote scat has to say about us all on the FUE's blot.

"Joe Koyote says:
October 8, 2014 at 9:30 am

I am curious as to why Rebane, Steele, Juvinall, Pruett, Meckler, etc. started blogs in the first place. Did they go to some seminar or conference sponsored by the Koch brothers on taking back America from the majority or how to stifle social change they don’t’ like? When the question of “what can I do to help forward the cause” came up was the answer “start a blog”, “write letters to the editor”, “join the real patriots in the tea party”, fart in a balloon and inhale the contents, etc. etc.? What motivates people to become politically active in an over-the-top manner?"

George 551pm - "The point remains that both 2349 and S deal only with NC’s MMJ consumption by about 2,000 patients". Since when did this become a fact?

SB420 Section 2 Article 2.5 (d) (3)

(3) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver
by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who
resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver,
if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by
any other qualified patient or person with an identification card.

That means that a caregiver in Nevada County can grow for a patient in another county as long as that caregiver only grows for that one person.

Also collectives and cooperatives can grow for dispensaries (the law is vague here) - but you still have to consider that in your estimates of MMJ users.

Measure S was written with input by agricultural experts in the field in order to facilitate sustainable production of MMJ and allow growers the reasonable, legal, use of their property while still taking into consideration their neighbor's right to enjoy their property. I don't think the county listened to the input from the farmers when the county wrote their ordinance. So, now we have to change it. Did law enforcement and the county counsel listen to any ag experts when crafting their "bandaid" ordinance? It sure does not read that way it to me.

BradC 1050am - That's an important point to bring up about Measure S that has not been promoted by its 'formal supporters' - ASA, et al. By their lights and admonitions, S is purposed to better serve the needs of ONLY our county's MMJ users who are allegedly suffering from shortages and lack of access to their MMJ. Your citing of state law to also expand NC's ability, nay, requirement, to become a statewide MMJ supplier is something new that has not been publicized as another benefit from and result of passing Measure S. In other words, your argument lets the cat out of the bag that the greater purpose of S is to increase the size of the county's MMJ grows so that the weed can also be exported up and down the state.

I wonder what Ms Patricia Smith would have to say about this Lucky Strike Extra appended to S. I do know that the anti-S people would be thrilled by this development.

That's the first I've heard that Measure S is purposed to better serve the needs of ONLY the MMJ patients of Nevada County. It serves the needs of ALL of Nevada County by striking a reasonable compromise between the property rights of those legally cultivating and their neighbors that do not. Furthermore, allowing cost recovery also serves the needs of Nevada County cultivators and caregivers (and by extension, merchants and businesses) who deserve to be able to offset some of their costs. Where and to whom it is sold is moot, and fair as long as it is done according to the same State law other counties must abide by.

Please direct me to the alleged light and admonitions that contains the word ONLY or EXCLUSIVELY. I don't see it in the text of Measure S. I don't recall having seen that on any ASA literature or in the forums. I don't see any new additions to Measure S.

Further your claims that their is "more than enough MJ for patients" does not differentiate (as it should) between medical grade, organically grown, pest and disease free product designed for specific treatment regimens and the schwag weed grown illegally in bulk by criminal / cartel grows on public lands.

APatriot 1146am - Not at all. Measure S doesn't have to say ONLY because that is its well understood purpose as reflected in the manner and content of its aggressive promotion. There would be no Measure S if it were determined that there existed no MMJ patients in the county. Most certainly it would not then be foisted on the electorate to provide for larger MMJ grows of product simply for export. And most certainly it is not for the benefit of the non-growing, non-consuming property owners, since it is they who must compromise because of the putatively ONLY purpose Measure S is on the ballot.

To confirm your correct understanding of S, I advise you contact Ms Smith and inform her of her oversight in not presenting to the public the additional benefits of larger and more numerous MMJ grows that will satisfy the export markets which will be enabled by Measure S. I guarantee you that she would appreciate the call, and then you could inform us all of how the both of you have decided to go forward with the pro-S campaign in the time left before the election. (BTW, the anti-S people do believe that the real purpose of S is even broader than you claim, but for obvious reasons not used in the pro-S public arguments.)

Finally, the use of ONLY in my 1108am was for the benefit of those readers who could not deduce that seminal conclusion from the debate of the past weeks. Apparently you are one of them - you're welcome!

George 1050am - The cats have always been feral regarding this "breaking news" pertaining to collectives and cooperatives. This law has been in place for 10 years and neither Measure S nor the existing ordinance give any guidance regarding collectives or cooperatives. So, your beloved Urgency ordinance is no better than Measure S in this regard.

Below are the State guidelines:

GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION
OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE
August 2008
IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
B. Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of a Cooperative or Collective:
7. Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: If a person is acting as primary
caregiver to more than one patient under section 11362.7(d)(2), he or she may
aggregate the possession and cultivation limits for each patient. For example,
applying the MMP’s basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is responsible for
three patients, he or she may possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana (8 oz. per patient)
and may grow 18 mature or 36 immature plants.

Below are the hastily written Nevada County guidelines. You can see that the County ordinance is potentially going against State guidelines by forcing arbitrary square footage requirements and not accounting for caregiver rights to grow their allotted number of plants by forcing them into too small of an area (and the area has to be contiguous) and not allowing for an indoor "starting area" to grow the immature plants simultaneously.

(G) The following limitations apply to Cultivation of Medical Marijuana on each Premises
located within the unincorporated area of Nevada County, regardless of the number of
Qualified Patients or Primary Caregivers residing at the Premises or participating directly
or indirectly in the Medical Marijuana Cultivation activity. These limitations shall be
imposed notwithstanding any assertion that the persons) Cultivating the Marijuana are
the Primary Caregivers) for Qualified Patients or that such persons) are collectively or
cooperatively Cultivating Marijuana.
(1) Premises located within any area zoned primarily for residential uses (e.g., R-1, R-
2, R-3 or R-A) shall be limited to the following:
a. Premises with a gross area of less than two acres shall be limited to 100
contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.
b. Premises with a gross area of two acres or more shall be limited to:
a. 75 contiguous square feet of Outdoor Cultivation area; or
b. Outdoor Cultivation of up to six (6) mature or immature Marijuana
plants if grown in grow bags or pots which are 25-gallons or smaller,
and all such plants are grown in a single, clearly designated
contiguous grow area; or
c. 100 contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.
(2) Premises located within any area zoned primarily for rural uses (e.g., AG, AE, FR,
or TPZ) shall be limited to the following:
a. Premises with a gross area of less than two acres shall be limited to 100
contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area or 150 contiguous square
feet of Outdoor Cultivation area.
b. Premises with a gross area of two acres but less than five acres shall be
limited to 300 contiguous square feet of Outdoor Cultivation area or 100
contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.
c. Premises with a gross area of five acres but less than ten acres shall be
limited to 400 contiguous square feet of Outdoor Cultivation area or 100
contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.
d. Premises with a gross area of ten acres but less than twenty acres shall be
limited to 600 contiguous square feet of Outdoor Cultivation area or 100
contiguous square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.
e. Premises with a gross area of 20 acres or more shall be limited to 1000
contiguous square feet of Outdoor Cultivation area or 100 contiguous
square feet of Indoor Cultivation area.

Below is a portion of Measure S. If you look at all 3 examples, you will see that the County ordinance would allow a caregiver growing for 3 patients an area limited to contiguous square footage maximums and you cannot have both an indoor “starting” area and an outdoor grow area. If you look at Measure S, you will see that a caregiver growing for 3 patients could actually grow 18 plants without square footage requirements and an indoor “starting” area could also be utilized.

Why are the Anti S folks over-reacting to these subtle changes?

RA, AG, AE, FR, or TPZ, located within the unincorporated area of Nevada County. Indoor and Outdoor Cultivation may occur simultaneously.

1. For parcels less than five (5) acres, twenty-four (24)immature or eighteen (18) mature plants may be cultivated outdoors. One hundred (100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation per Qualified Patient is allowed with a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet regardless of the number of members patients in the Collective or Cooperative.

BradC 107pm - thanks for the extended dissertation. As I explain in my 1252pm, the real objective of S is to increase the size and number of MMJ grows from what 2349 allows. This is to be done to solve an unknown problem, nay, a problem the knowledge of which is proscribed by the pro-S crowd. Nevertheless, the data you present is correct and useful to highlight. The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-S folks have not been presented with any compelling reasons to abandon 2349, and many to keep it in place. So I think both sides will just keep talking past each other hoping to snag an undecided voter here and there.

But what would throw some mojo into the mix at this late stage is if Ms Smith et al would take your (1050am) and APatriot's (1146am) exhortations to heart and expand the pro-S message to include more and larger MMJ grows that would also service the statewide MMJ markets. Now that would be exciting.

George, you complain over numbers that are not substantiated and then you have the audacity to declare unilaterally that NC grows enough medicine to supply all the patients in California. The numbers you used to arrive at this statistic are laughable.

Most patients need 3 pounds a YEAR? Where did you come up with that preposterous number? A 35-pound child needs 12 pounds a year to produce enough tincture to stop her seizures. Not conjecture - fact.

Most plants produce 6 pounds! If only. The number changes drastically based on the strain you grow. It can range from 1/2 pound to 6 pounds of more, but the norm is 2 - 3 pounds.

The first thing our elected officials say when we bring up lack of access is "go to a dispensary in Sacramento." So these dispensaries are supplying patients from our county too. They also provide the advantage of finding exactly the strain you are looking for which can be difficult when dealing with local access only.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that most of the marijuana being grown in NC is NOT medicine. Measure S seeks to force these growers out of the picture or get them to convert to growing organic medicine for patients. I know there is a shortage of medicine in this county based on the numerous calls I receive every day from patients who cannot find someone to grow medicine for them.

BTW, the "audacious" figures I posted about 5% of the states population came from the Center for Disease Control - so if you have a beef with those figures (because they don't agree with your assumptions, talk to them).

One cannot ignore the number of patients that visit our local doctors who write MMJ recommendations. This would indicate a substantially higher number of active patients than you want to admit. Again, it is impossible to get a factually accurate number for many reasons, but mostly because there is no central registration collecting agency to verify these numbers. I'll leave the guessing games to you.

No George that is your conjecture, opinion and hallucination. Please provide the links requested. You made the claims. Back that ish up! We don't even need to talk about aggressive promotion, damn right! People need to be informed. I've seen 4 No signs posted around a Yes sign and you talk to me about aggressive? Only the No on S posse seems to be afraid of facts. You constantly ignore the reasons S is an improvement. you wanted reasons, I gave you sound agricultural practices, no response. You appear to know nothing of healthy cultivation of cannabis it's requirement and pitfalls. Instead, you seem to assume near ideal laboratory conditions for your guesses at yield. You also seem to think the title Dr. makes you a medical expert, from the manner and content of your dosage claims. I attempt to explain that there is a difference between MJ and MMJ and you ignore the distinction. Convenient? I suggest you educate yourself on the correct understanding of S. Stop by Merry Jane;s and talk to Martin about it. It's pretty obvious you haven't done a good side by side comparison. Instead you spout on about the ONLY reasons YOU feel are valid. I don't buy your "seminal conclusion". It's nonsense.

How about you tell US how many times the B of S has met to adjust, revise and improve what exists. They haven't, they lied, and they continue to fall short. Lead, Follow or Get out of the way. Yes, Measure S could have many, many benefits beyond those promoted on a simple flyer. That is pretty obvious. For now they are merely hopeful possibilities.

PatriciaS 322pm & APatriot 404pm - I take from your total ducking of the Measure S providing sufficient MMJ grows for export means that it is a hot topic that you want to avoid in the remaining time to the vote. That itself is a message which makes interesting reading given the above arguments of BradC and APatriot (and even PaulE). Nevertheless its admission is now a matter of record. I will address the rest of your points in an update to this post. Thank you for the timely replies.

No quackery here. I'd love for skilled caregivers to be able provide sufficient Medical Grade Cannabis for the patients of Nevada County (that currently have recommendations), as well as the patients here that might find treatment beneficial, yet go uncounted because they are afraid to raise the topic their physicians due to a fear of losing their insurance, being cut off from needed pharmaceutical analgesics because the sought out an "unconventional" approach, ostracism from those that fail to see the potential relief offered for a wide variety of conditions or bullying from those that would infringe on their right to make personal, private medical choices. A population you have failed to recognize or address.

Given its status under State law, an opportunity to attract more $ from "down the hill" via legal intrastate supply of patients in need is just duckie with me. I'd like to see a fair opportunity for local cultivators to offset and/or recover their expenses and compete fairly with other counties with more reasonable restrictions and controls. This is a good thing. Basic economics. But still, lets get real, no one is getting rich, or is going to get rich, from 6 plants per patient grown legally. Google map and mark a few of those multi-million dollar estates up on the ridge for me, will you? Better yet, how about some Real Estate tax data.

APatriot 543pm - You've now introduced yet another new factor which definitely has not been aired in this debate - that the declared use of MMJ is looked down upon and therefore some people needing it are not treated fairly or honorably by the medical profession, and even others who engage in "bullying" those needing MMJ.

You are correct that I (and probably the rest of the county not using MMJ) have "failed to recognize or address" this new cohort about which nothing has been said in the S debate by the pro-S faction. But now that you mention it, I fail to see how S would improve upon 2349 for these afflicted and denied people. So given that this is another dimension of the MMJ problem, do you have any data about what fraction of the potentially legitimate MMJ users are cringing in the shadows? Perhaps this will let us approach Ms Smith's 20,000 estimate if we include all those needing MMJ but are afraid to expose their need. Do these people substitute RMJ to alleviate their suffering, or simply do without?

Please expand, since you seem to have some deep knowledge about the subject.

I have limited direct experience with people with legitimate medical conditions that do not have recommendations, both in California and other states with MMJ. I would not say I have deep knowledge. Some use Medical grade RMJ from trusted sources (without a recommendation) for relief, Most I know do without. Sadly, many employers still consider a positive test for cannabis grounds for immediate dismissal, even if it is with a recommendation and kept out of the workplace.

Instead of asking how many are cringing in the shadow, perhaps it would be more illuminating to first identify the legitimate conditions for which Medical Cannabis is used and then total the number of persons affected by these conditions, their likely dosage frequency and delivery modalities and their potential for treatment using less toxic alternatives such as cannabis. How many patients are currently taking highly addictive prescription analgesics, sleep aids, seizure medications, appetite stimulants and other drugs, both over the counter and by prescription, that could effectively be treated with MMJ? My educated guess is that the number of people that could potentially benefit from occasional or continued medical use is upwards of 60%, far higher than Ms. Smith's estimate of patients with current recommendations. While Measure S doesn't address this new cohort directly, it should be considered when estimating potential patient totals and future demand within the county. As the stigma resulting from decades of propaganda is slowly peeled away, current trends suggest we can only expect more of those in the shadows to come into the light.

Now its 60% of the population. While this crew has no sense of humor they are really funny. The average recommendation in CA is for a 32 year old underemployed white guy who self identifies as having other substance issues in the past as well as no serious medical condition by anyone's standards. 'I'm bummed I am underemployed, I need a recommendation'. Going to math wasted made the day go by so much better. Why wont anyone hire me? Its discrimination! Did anyone see the study by the Dutch on weed and creativity? MEASURE S DEBATE OLD SCHOOL, HIGH NOON ON FRIDAY IN ENEMY TERRATORY, KVMR RADIO. Heard Supervisor Chair Beason was telling the truth on KNCO today. What do you all think of the No on S commercials on KNCO?

Happy to clear that up. My referent is your last comment to me where you say
"Not at all. Measure S doesn't have to say ONLY because that is its well understood purpose as reflected in the manner and content of its aggressive promotion. There would be no Measure S if it were determined that there existed no MMJ patients in the county. Most certainly it would not then be foisted on the electorate to provide for larger MMJ grows of product simply for export. And most certainly it is not for the benefit of the non-growing, non-consuming property owners, since it is they who must compromise because of the putatively ONLY purpose Measure S is on the ballot."

2. I'm hardly the only one with an occasional gratuitous crack, which may also be why some here don't get the answers they seek.

3. Don't try to tell me the BofS has made any attempt at substantive modification to 2349. The document you reference states:

"The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to make several minor, and narrowly tailored, technical amendments to the Cultivation Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clean-up minor drafting errors in the Cultivation Ordinance and provide clarification regarding the occupancy requirements for Qualified Patients and Primary Caregivers who collectively cultivate."

4. Once again, you fail to discern between legal cultivation of Medical grade cannabis and all MJ grown in Nevada County. Do you really claim to be able to diagnose crop health, the absence of pesticides, and freedom from actual pests and disease such as mold using Google maps? All that and THC / CBD / CBN content too. SMH.

That's right Don, my personal opinion is that 60% of the population could benefit from medicinal cannabis at one time or another. You say "no serious medical conditions by anyone's standards". What drivel. First, why does the medical condition need to be "serious"? What is "serious"? It's intuitively obvious that at least two people closely involved feel the standard has been met. The only ones necessary. The patient and the trained physician making the recommendation.

Why not go with the Illinois model and be real. There is a guy who lives on Catalina Island and does his evaluations by skipe in junky store fronts with a 'nurse' who uses a stamp for the recommendation. Spare me.

Because I simply consider the Illinois model too restrictive. It seems to be the case as that state is experiencing a lack of supply relative to demand. One thing that Illinois is doing is re-evaluating and embracing needed modifications aimed at improving the fledgling system and increasing the opportunities for economic benefit surrounding MMJ in the State.

The polling data says otherwise. Cry me a river on your lack of Nevada County weed or as you say BAN ON MEDICAL CANABIS. You guys have no sense of humor but are a constant source of laughs! Who saw the Dutch paper on weed and creativity? The average CA recommendation holder is a 32 year old underemployed white guy who self reports prior L.E. and other drug involvements. Gee, why don't they hire me? I am bummed because I don't have a good job. I need a recommendation to fix this. Its discrimination!! Does obamacare pay? Weed helped me dealing with the time I had to waste in math.' THE ONLY REAL OLD SCHOOL DEBATE ON S IS AT HIGH NOON, FRIDAY, IN ENEMY TERRATORY, KVMR ON YOUR FM DIAL. Pattie the ASA Propaganda Minister and me.

Hey don! Actually heard a promo for your imminent shellacking on KVMR. Maybe you will learn how to spell Cannabis by then. Still claiming to represent ASPOA even after they disavowed themselves of your statements? Bet they hope they don't lose their tax exempt status as a 501c3 due to your forked tongue. As far as polling data, we're still waiting for analysis we can trust. Cough it up.

APatriot 1041pm - If you have another purpose in mind for Measure S, please tell us, and then explain why it has been omitted from its promo materials.

The only reason people of all political bents come to RR is that they do get their questions answered, but not necessarily with the answers they expect.

You forgot to list the more substantive 2349 amendment. But the point is made that 2349 is demonstrably amendable and S is not.

As far as being able to "diagnose crop health" from the air or ground, I make no such claims. All I do is infer from the evidence of the years of numerous NC grows that growing all kinds of MJ here is a productive endeavor made possible by the harvesting of healthy MJ plants. For a liberal such an inference may be a bridge too far, but then that is what makes our worlds so different.

1. George, if you'd care to read Measure S and the materials the Yes on S group has published, you might glean a little information about the purpose of this measure. My personal reasons for support of Measure S go beyond those of ASA. You'll need to ask them why anything you feel should have been included was omitted.

No, again you make assumptions. I for one do not come here for to get my questions answered, most of the posse in these parts have proven to me to have less than perfect credibility and the few "answers" I see don't address the question, are obfuscated or are heavily spun.

Liberal is your label, not mine. You make inferences with incomplete knowledge. You seem adamantly incapable of making a differentiation between Medical Grade Cannabis and RMJ. Th inferential leaps expressed here are often so great that I can only believe their proponents are from some satellite with weaker gravity - Luna seems most likely for some.

Looking forward to a robust debate on the ISSUES of Measure S on KVMR tomorrow at noon. So far, all the opposition can come up with are problems being committed by drug cartels and commercial growers that have nothing to do with Measure S.

As you know, I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use, but I know that it is coming to CA within the next two years. It is critical that we prepare for that day now before the law changes. Measure S will provide protections against large commercial enterprises moving into NC because they will be limited to growing the same number of plants as the rest of us. In Washington State, the gov't is offering cultivation licenses for 21,000 acre marijuana grow sites. Do want something like that here or would you prefer small mom & pops scattered throughout the County? I don't want patients to lose the right to grow their own medicine.

APatriot 917am - If RR were even a fraction of how you characterize its ability to provide thoughtful information and insights, and serve as a forum for wide ranging debates, then it would not have the traffic load and participation that it enjoys from all socio-political viewpoints. Given your assessment of this blog, I invite you to take your arguments elsewhere where they may get a more comprehensive and equitable treatment.

This illustrates again the points made here about 2349 containing provisions for appeal that are absent from S.

PatriciaS 922am - Unfortunately, since we are told that to a large extent MJ is a fungible product which easily crosses the boundary of MMJ and RMJ use, the "problems being committed by drug cartels" are germane to factors surrounding MMJ supply and access. In short, existentially it's hard to separate what goes on in the two markets even when we recognize the special needs of MMJ patients for special kinds and forms of MJ.

If you have read RR, then you know that I do favor the legalization, control, and taxation of RMJ. And as you, I also believe that it is coming to CA sooner than later. Favoring RMJ legalization, I most certainly support the safe access of MMJ as you and I have discussed in past meetings. The only debate here is whether S is a worthy successor to the amendable 2349, even if one considers that 2349, as amended today, still falls short of an ideal ordinance. I have made clear my reasons for supporting 2349.

Finally, I hope that you and DonB have an energetic, comprehensive, and informative debate this Friday on KVMR. And that during the debate you would feel comfortable expanding the pro-S message to include its enabling of the county's MMJ export markets, and also please raise the MMJ stigma issue that purports to deny MMJ use to the additional tens of thousands of willing users. (In any event, I am happy that RR has served as the forum in which pro-S commenters felt comfortable in introducing these additional concerns to a wider audience.)

If you read the background provided with the 2349 technical amendments, items 4 and 5 are merely appointments pursuant to completing requirements called for in other parts of the ordinance, relate only to appointments of personnel for enforcement/hearings and are completely unrelated to the technical requirements of successful cultivation of MMJ addressed by Measure S.

On other matters of civility, Yes, you have given lip service to the substance of a few of my arguments, occasionally more, when it suits, and I commend and appreciate that consideration at least. The same cannot be said for many that appear to be the local cheering section. Perhaps you need to tighten your ship. If you really can't handle the heat, please confirm that you are showing me the door, and I'll refrain from voicing my opinions, analysis and criticism and simply stop in for a little entertainment from time to time.

George, your examples of the County amending the ordinance are ludicrous. All they did was to add an Appeals Officer so they could abate more gardens. The appeals process is a joke. There are no exceptions so even if you aren't creating a nuisance for anyone, you are still guilty if you violate any one of the nonsensical requirements in 2349. There is no judicial oversight.

If the County had shown a willingness to come to the table to amend 2349, we wouldn't be having this debate or have to put Measure S on the ballot.

All of these large gardens that you refer to are out of compliance. We do not want to operate outside the law which is why we are trying to create a law that it is possible for patients to follow.

APatriot 1224pm - Just defending the hearth and homestead. You seem to have nothing but contempt for both this blog's ideas and its readers who are of a different persuasion than you. And if any blogger hereabouts can "handle the heat" it is I who does not have to "tighten (my) ship" as do those heat sensitive bloggers of the Left. I just don't want you to visibly suffer here when you have appropriately "tight" alternatives elsewhere. But please rest in the contentment that your ideas have yet to generate any detectable, let alone uncomfortable heat (perhaps you're going easy on me for starters). Now your expressions of contempt for me is another matter.

Nevertheless, your ideas on these pages are most welcome, how else can we appreciate the basis and substance of liberal thought save that they conveniently arrive to contend with our own? As I advise all RR readers - preferably stick to the contending ideas, but if that is not possible, try to be at least churchillian in your repartees.

Cheap PR ploy Don Petty, you must be terrified. Not filing some paperwork on a few bucks is so much more onerous than voters turning up missing from the registration lists and missing the mark on unbiased ballots. Hope they investigate the county for their past questionable actions and hold them to task. Its amazing the pattern one sees.

Ploy? Filing election reports in April, May 28th and then now, one that only covers July to Sept means there is a gap for the end of May and all of June. Then there is the semi-annual that was due July 31st. $10,000 cash donations set off special requirements on reporting from both the recipient and the source, or how can the Secretary of State audit the campaigns? What are the real source of those funds? The public has a right to know who is paying for this. Then there is the $7,500 and other donations over $1,000 that also require special handling. In addition you have all the advertising and hand outs that do not have FPPC #s or paid for by on them. Go look at the ads in the Union on pg 2 the week of the asa Nevada city theatre event, no FPPC # or paid for by. There was even a front page picture of a ponytailed dude posting a flyer on a door of the same ad, again no FPPC #. This all has been reviewed by election law legal eagles. These are the rules all committees have to comply with, so what makes you so special? I think we all know what would happen if the Sheriff or DA had done any of these in a campaign. I seem to recall the elections office said that a lot of the registrations you guys turned in were not complete and could not be processed. Guess you guys should have told your workers to not fill out government forms buzzed! :-)